Umm...no. In fact, one of our most cherished saints in the Ozarks is St. John Kucharov, who lived in the 19th and 20th c. A.D. He was an apostle to Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas, and became the first martyr of the Bolshevik Revolution. We venerate him weekly in church, and many of us daily at home.

The answer is simple: Regardless of what Rome does, we're going to be the Body of Christ. If others choose not to be a part of that body, it's their loss, but it doesn't affect what we do. We have always canonized saints we found to exhibit Christ in extraordinary way, in 1054 just as in 54, and we will continue to do so in 2054, 3054, and beyond.

Quote

Perhaps I can ask the question this way:When did the Roman Catholic Tradition stop being Orthodox Tradition? 1054? 1204? 1453? 1717?

I , perhaps, have confused some with my previous question. Sorry about that. My amended questions above should clear that up. God Bless.

Then when? That is what I can't seem to tack down. Where do our traditions finally, and authoritatively end?

Why do you need to "tack down" the date? For me, it is analogous to pulling multiple threads out of the sweater until the entire sweater almost falls apart. One thread is the Filioque--another thread is the mutual excommunications--another thread is the sack of Constantinople--another thread is the IC (1854)--another thread is infallibility (1870)......etc......

Perhaps I can ask the question this way:When did the Roman Catholic Tradition stop being Orthodox Tradition? 1054? 1204? 1453? 1717?

Okay, that's a little clearer. Well, it's hard to say exactly. 1054 is a pretty good start, since the mutual excommunications took place that year, but even then it was not certain that Rome would begin to form another religion. Many historians believe that the two could have been re-united if circumstances would have allowed it, but bitter feelings on both sides, as well as an ever-widening list of differences between the various rites (at the time there were many more than just Latin and Byzantine), perhaps caused a rift so large it could not be repaired. So the Schism really began about the time of the Chalcedonian Council, when West and Oriental began to separate from the East, and it continues with Latin innovations such as the Immaculate Conception.

So the story is just too big to be told with one date, but if we have to pick a date, 1054 is certainly adequate.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Okay, that's a little clearer. Well, it's hard to say exactly. 1054 is a pretty good start, since the mutual excommunications took place that year, but even then it was not certain that Rome would begin to form another religion. Many historians believe that the two could have been re-united if circumstances would have allowed it, but bitter feelings on both sides, as well as an ever-widening list of differences between the various rites (at the time there were many more than just Latin and Byzantine), perhaps caused a rift so large it could not be repaired. So the Schism really began about the time of the Chalcedonian Council, when West and Oriental began to separate from the East, and it continues with Latin innovations such as the Immaculate Conception.

So the story is just too big to be told with one date, but if we have to pick a date, 1054 is certainly adequate.

I have read many Orthodox articles regarding 1054 not being the Great Schism that everyone chalks it up to be. It was just an excommunication of certain "individuals", not certain Patriachates. This would certainly muddy the waters for me. To tie this in to my first question: How does this effect the saints we venerate? Such as Saint Francis of Assisi (I am only using him as a generic example)?

Sorry. Despite what you learned in your high school history class, the course of human events just isn't that tidy. There's not going to be "the date." Instead, we have what I find much more interesting, an entire series of events that intertwine most of the Mediterranean world for centuries. History is not about facts; it's about relationships.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Sorry. Despite what you learned in your high school history class, the course of human events just isn't that tidy. There's not going to be "the date." Instead, we have what I find much more interesting, an entire series of events that intertwine most of the Mediterranean world for centuries. History is not about facts; it's about relationships.

Sorry. Despite what you learned in your high school history class, the course of human events just isn't that tidy. There's not going to be "the date." Instead, we have what I find much more interesting, an entire series of events that intertwine most of the Mediterranean world for centuries. History is not about facts; it's about relationships.

So much for playing Jeopardy. I can just hear the discussion unravel;

"Sorry Alex, you've presented these human events too tidily. I cannot see the relationship involved ergo your 'facts' are inadequate" "Sir, the question is regarding Jan the 20th being what important date for Americans? A fact that just recently occurred.""Sorry. History is not about facts; it's about relationships." "Well, sir, perhaps you should be on Dr. Phil then instead of trying to play Jeopardy."

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

"Sorry Alex, you've presented these human events too tidily. I cannot see the relationship involved ergo your 'facts' are inadequate" "Sir, the question is regarding Jan the 20th being what important date for Americans? A fact that just recently occurred.""Sorry. History is not about facts; it's about relationships." "Well, sir, perhaps you should be on Dr. Phil then instead of trying to play Jeopardy."

Sorry. Despite what you learned in your high school history class, the course of human events just isn't that tidy. There's not going to be "the date." Instead, we have what I find much more interesting, an entire series of events that intertwine most of the Mediterranean world for centuries. History is not about facts; it's about relationships.

So when was the relationship over?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Exactly. And this seems to be where the gray area is. Is there even a "kind-of-sort-of" date, perhaps?

I have no idea. The break has been treated in many different ways over the past one thousand years. Sometimes that treatment did not include treating Catholic as graceless heretics.

« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 12:35:42 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I have no idea. The break has been treated in many different ways over the past one thousand years. Sometimes that treatment did not include treating Catholic as graceless heretics.

Ah, I see. Hmmmmm. Care to elaborate?

I don't have any of the information at my finger tips but I have heard of stories in places were Catholic priests were hearing confessions of Eastern Orthodox Christians with the approval of the Orthodox there. There are other stories but, as I said, I don't have them at my finger tips. I think some of them are in Met. Ware's book, The Orthodox Church. I will do some research tonight and try to provide some sources.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Okay, that's a little clearer. Well, it's hard to say exactly. 1054 is a pretty good start, since the mutual excommunications took place that year, but even then it was not certain that Rome would begin to form another religion. Many historians believe that the two could have been re-united if circumstances would have allowed it, but bitter feelings on both sides, as well as an ever-widening list of differences between the various rites (at the time there were many more than just Latin and Byzantine), perhaps caused a rift so large it could not be repaired. So the Schism really began about the time of the Chalcedonian Council, when West and Oriental began to separate from the East, and it continues with Latin innovations such as the Immaculate Conception.

So the story is just too big to be told with one date, but if we have to pick a date, 1054 is certainly adequate.

I have read many Orthodox articles regarding 1054 not being the Great Schism that everyone chalks it up to be. It was just an excommunication of certain "individuals", not certain Patriachates. This would certainly muddy the waters for me. To tie this in to my first question: How does this effect the saints we venerate? Such as Saint Francis of Assisi (I am only using him as a generic example)?

Let's try an anology:John and Susan get married in 1980. For the first 10 years they seem to have a good strong marriage. But then strains start to appear. In 1990, John loses his job, he starts drinking more, they are both under stress and there are several huge fights. However, they hang on in 1991, John gets a new job. The stress is reduced and things improve. But they aren't all the way back. John's new job has him working longer hours. Susan has more free time and over the next couple of years she takes up new activities that don't include John. As she spends more time on them and with the new friends associated with them, she's home less even John is not working. They are arguing more again. In 1995 things reach an explosive head, Susan leaves the house and goes to stay with a friend for 2 weeks. Eventually she comes home though, they reconcile and struggle on together for another year. Then there's another explosion and this time John storms out and files divorce papers in 1996. Again, two weeks later they meet for dinner, they try to reconcile, decide to see a councillor, maybe go on a trip together to try to work things out. The trip goes okay and John drops the divorce papers. But both are still feeling dissatisfied. Finally in 1997 they agree to a separation. Several times during the separation they meet, they have a nice time together, maybe even sleep together. But they also fight and neither can summon the will to get back together. So John re-files the divorce papers. Even then, they keep meeting occasionally talking, they both want to avoid divorce but they just can't seem to stay around each other more than 24 hours without fighting. Finally in 1998, the divorce becomes final. Even then, two years later, they meet at the party of a mutal friend, they have a great conversation, end up going home together. Things are great for week or two. And then there's another fight.

At what point did the two divorce? 1998. But roots of the divorce go much further back than that, you could as accurately say that the marriage, as a functioning relationship ended in in 1997 or 1996. And the relationship didn't completely end in 1998. Part linger, giving us 2000.

So let's say Susan took up pottery in 1991. Is that activity something that contributed to the divorce? Or to the marriage? Maybe, the time on her own, satisfying a creative impulse, helped strengthen her to deal with the troubles in her marriage and so helped her continue as long as she did; or maybe it was an escape, a part of her life she could shut John out of and thus a contributed to the divorce.

So 1054, the Roman delegate excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and, by extension, anyone who remained in communion with him. Like John & Susan's divorce decree in 1998 that gives us a clear, formal date. But it doesn't mean that the West was perfectly Orthodox until 1054 and completely un-Orthodox (or heretical) after 1054. There was build-up. The issues that would eventually separate Rome from the Church started well before 1054, that's simply the date they reached a point that they could no longer be overlooked or worked around; and after 1054 Rome still retained many of the good things it had from the Church, but it was no longer a part of it.

Therefore, just because a practice was present in the West prior to 1054, doesn't make it Orthodox. Like Susan's pottery, one would have to examine it in light of Orthodoxy to see if it was a valid expression of Orthodoxy, or a symptom of the growing heterodoxy which would eventually lead Rome out of the Church. Practices after 1054 are even more problematic. Roman Catholics still believed many correct things (far more than, say, Muslims or Buddhists), and therefore they might develop useful thoughts or practices based on those correct things and without too much warping by the incorrect things. Or they might come up with a good idea that was also thoroughly mixed with their heterodox approach. It requires study, discernment, and, most importantly, submission to the Mind of the Church which was preserved in Orthodoxy to tell which was which (which is why, though I don't agree with them, I understand those who just take a blanket knee-jerk reaction of 'it's Western, avoid it'; they avoid the risk).

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Well, the relationship is over as of right now, so maybe we can just settle for that!

True. There isn't much practical significance in trying to figure out when the schism is finalized expect for the purpose of determing the different ways that the Eastern Orthodox Church has dealt with Catholics over the years.

« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 03:11:54 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Okay, that's a little clearer. Well, it's hard to say exactly. 1054 is a pretty good start, since the mutual excommunications took place that year, but even then it was not certain that Rome would begin to form another religion. Many historians believe that the two could have been re-united if circumstances would have allowed it, but bitter feelings on both sides, as well as an ever-widening list of differences between the various rites (at the time there were many more than just Latin and Byzantine), perhaps caused a rift so large it could not be repaired. So the Schism really began about the time of the Chalcedonian Council, when West and Oriental began to separate from the East, and it continues with Latin innovations such as the Immaculate Conception.

So the story is just too big to be told with one date, but if we have to pick a date, 1054 is certainly adequate.

I have read many Orthodox articles regarding 1054 not being the Great Schism that everyone chalks it up to be. It was just an excommunication of certain "individuals", not certain Patriachates. This would certainly muddy the waters for me. To tie this in to my first question: How does this effect the saints we venerate? Such as Saint Francis of Assisi (I am only using him as a generic example)?

Let's try an anology:John and Susan get married in 1980. For the first 10 years they seem to have a good strong marriage. But then strains start to appear. In 1990, John loses his job, he starts drinking more, they are both under stress and there are several huge fights. However, they hang on in 1991, John gets a new job. The stress is reduced and things improve. But they aren't all the way back. John's new job has him working longer hours. Susan has more free time and over the next couple of years she takes up new activities that don't include John. As she spends more time on them and with the new friends associated with them, she's home less even John is not working. They are arguing more again. In 1995 things reach an explosive head, Susan leaves the house and goes to stay with a friend for 2 weeks. Eventually she comes home though, they reconcile and struggle on together for another year. Then there's another explosion and this time John storms out and files divorce papers in 1996. Again, two weeks later they meet for dinner, they try to reconcile, decide to see a councillor, maybe go on a trip together to try to work things out. The trip goes okay and John drops the divorce papers. But both are still feeling dissatisfied. Finally in 1997 they agree to a separation. Several times during the separation they meet, they have a nice time together, maybe even sleep together. But they also fight and neither can summon the will to get back together. So John re-files the divorce papers. Even then, they keep meeting occasionally talking, they both want to avoid divorce but they just can't seem to stay around each other more than 24 hours without fighting. Finally in 1998, the divorce becomes final. Even then, two years later, they meet at the party of a mutal friend, they have a great conversation, end up going home together. Things are great for week or two. And then there's another fight.

At what point did the two divorce? 1998. But roots of the divorce go much further back than that, you could as accurately say that the marriage, as a functioning relationship ended in in 1997 or 1996. And the relationship didn't completely end in 1998. Part linger, giving us 2000.

So let's say Susan took up pottery in 1991. Is that activity something that contributed to the divorce? Or to the marriage? Maybe, the time on her own, satisfying a creative impulse, helped strengthen her to deal with the troubles in her marriage and so helped her continue as long as she did; or maybe it was an escape, a part of her life she could shut John out of and thus a contributed to the divorce.

So 1054, the Roman delegate excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and, by extension, anyone who remained in communion with him. Like John & Susan's divorce decree in 1998 that gives us a clear, formal date. But it doesn't mean that the West was perfectly Orthodox until 1054 and completely un-Orthodox (or heretical) after 1054. There was build-up. The issues that would eventually separate Rome from the Church started well before 1054, that's simply the date they reached a point that they could no longer be overlooked or worked around; and after 1054 Rome still retained many of the good things it had from the Church, but it was no longer a part of it.

Therefore, just because a practice was present in the West prior to 1054, doesn't make it Orthodox. Like Susan's pottery, one would have to examine it in light of Orthodoxy to see if it was a valid expression of Orthodoxy, or a symptom of the growing heterodoxy which would eventually lead Rome out of the Church. Practices after 1054 are even more problematic. Roman Catholics still believed many correct things (far more than, say, Muslims or Buddhists), and therefore they might develop useful thoughts or practices based on those correct things and without too much warping by the incorrect things. Or they might come up with a good idea that was also thoroughly mixed with their heterodox approach. It requires study, discernment, and, most importantly, submission to the Mind of the Church which was preserved in Orthodoxy to tell which was which (which is why, though I don't agree with them, I understand those who just take a blanket knee-jerk reaction of 'it's Western, avoid it'; they avoid the risk).

That was excellent. Thank you so much. I would like to comment, though. Even though there were problems in the marriage, was it not still a marriage? This is where my confusion comes in. Yes there were problems before, and after, 1054, but where do we say, definitively, that the two traditions are forever separated/divided? Why do some project it to 1204, or 1453, or 1717? Could someone also point me in the direction of some info on 1717? I have found plenty regarding 1204, and 1453, but nothing on 1717. Thanks, and God Bless!

That was excellent. Thank you so much. I would like to comment, though. Even though there were problems in the marriage, was it not still a marriage? This is where my confusion comes in. Yes there were problems before, and after, 1054, but where do we say, definitively, that the two traditions are forever separated/divided? Why do some project it to 1204, or 1453, or 1717? Could someone also point me in the direction of some info on 1717? I have found plenty regarding 1204, and 1453, but nothing on 1717. Thanks, and God Bless!

Well, like any analogy, it can only be pressed so far. The only actual marriage here was the one between The Church and Christ, not between East and West. I use 1054 because that is the date that Rome itself told the rest of the Church "If you don't accept my errors (particularly papalism), we are no longer One Church". Before that, the East could overlook the growing errors in the West or remonstrate with them in the hope of correcting them (both strategies pursued by various saints and hieararchies at various times), but after that it was Rome stating they were no longer part of the Church (obviously they defined it otherwise).

In other words, part of the confusion comes because the East did not eject the West from the Church. The West took itself out. Various portions of the East may have tried to maintain the relationship for longer periods than others which would give a different date 'in practice' for Constantinople vs. Antioch. And there were multiple attempts at rapprochement initiated on one side or the other which further muddy the waters. But 1054 is Rome's date for when they left.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

That was excellent. Thank you so much. I would like to comment, though. Even though there were problems in the marriage, was it not still a marriage? This is where my confusion comes in. Yes there were problems before, and after, 1054, but where do we say, definitively, that the two traditions are forever separated/divided? Why do some project it to 1204, or 1453, or 1717? Could someone also point me in the direction of some info on 1717? I have found plenty regarding 1204, and 1453, but nothing on 1717. Thanks, and God Bless!

Well, like any analogy, it can only be pressed so far. The only actual marriage here was the one between The Church and Christ, not between East and West. I use 1054 because that is the date that Rome itself told the rest of the Church "If you don't accept my errors (particularly papalism), we are no longer One Church". Before that, the East could overlook the growing errors in the West or remonstrate with them in the hope of correcting them (both strategies pursued by various saints and hieararchies at various times), but after that it was Rome stating they were no longer part of the Church (obviously they defined it otherwise).

In other words, part of the confusion comes because the East did not eject the West from the Church. The West took itself out. Various portions of the East may have tried to maintain the relationship for longer periods than others which would give a different date 'in practice' for Constantinople vs. Antioch. And there were multiple attempts at rapprochement initiated on one side or the other which further muddy the waters. But 1054 is Rome's date for when they left.

I doubt highly that they would say that 1054 is when they "left", but I get what you are saying. These different dates "in practice", could you explain some of them? Thanks.

The excommunications were rescinded, though communion not restored, so I'm not sure this is even quite that simple.

Well, obviously the popular conscience of neither apostolic church excepted those recensions, as the lack of communion testifies to. So what we really had was one Eastern Patriarch who thought that he could revise history without the consent of the Church. While the intention was good, it did not change anything. The excommunications still happened, rescinded or not, and the effects of them remain in place. So practically speaking, until communion is restored, the anathemas remain in action.

While we are on the topic of Roman Catholic devotions, I know that the Orthodox find the Catholic trend in venerating isolated body parts of Christ and the Theotokos to be strange and inappropriate. But I was wondering, if this is so wrong, then why do we pray to the Cross of the Lord? This seems to be in the same category of strangeness, as two piece of wood to comprise a person in any real sense. How can the Life Giving Cross of the Lord hear our prayer and grant requests? It seems very odd and unOrthodox to me.

Or is this just another theological error in popular Russian devotion? The Jordanville Prayer Book has these prayers, if you would like me to type them out.

The ancient rites of Ireland, Scotland, Wales were entirely and utterly destroyed by the close of the 12th century. In Ireland this was accomplished at the insistence of the Papal Legate of Pope Adrian at the Synod of Cashel in 1172 AD and backed up by the invading Anglo-Norman army. Continental Catholicism and the Anglo-Sarum Rite were imposed on Ireland in 1172. All Irish bishops were replaced by Anglo-Norman bishops. The remaining forms of the ancient ways of Irish monasticism were completely erased. From 1172 onwards all diversity was crushed and it had to be only Rome's way.

While we are on the topic of Roman Catholic devotions, I know that the Orthodox find the Catholic trend in venerating isolated body parts of Christ and the Theotokos to be strange and inappropriate. But I was wondering, if this is so wrong, then why do we pray to the Cross of the Lord? This seems to be in the same category of strangeness, as two piece of wood to comprise a person in any real sense. How can the Life Giving Cross of the Lord hear our prayer and grant requests? It seems very odd and unOrthodox to me.

Or is this just another theological error in popular Russian devotion? The Jordanville Prayer Book has these prayers, if you would like me to type them out.

A look at the vigil text for the feasts of the Veneration of the Cross (3rd Sunday of Great Lent), and the Exaltation of the Cross (September 14) make the Orthodox Church's position quite clear. Both feasts are "universal" feasts of the Church, i.e. are celebrated by all local Orthodox churches, not just the Russian. The church also has feasts for various icons of the Mother of God, for the Mandylion of Christ, the veneration of the chains of Apostle Peter, the Deposition of the belt of the Mother of God, etc. These items became holy through the actions of those who were themselves holy, and are treated with the same honour and reverence as relics and icons.

Well, obviously the popular conscience of neither apostolic church excepted those recensions, as the lack of communion testifies to.

On the Catholic side, that's not the case. Communion is open to Orthodox Christians, and I'm sure they would gladly concelebrate if given the chance. Read the Melkite initiative.

On the Orthodox side the story is mixed, it hasn't entered the popular conscience except for where it has. Two of the examples are ones I cited.

Things will continue as they are since there is no consistent Orthodox position on this. That's one of the reasons the Pope is so keen on visiting Moscow---making accords with the EP isn't even nearly enough. No patriarchate can speak for Orthodoxy, and endless rivalries between churches make a pan-Orthodox synod not likely anytime soon.

In some jurisdictions, the Supreme Pontiff is referred to as "Your Holiness, beloved brother in the Lord" and among the "venerable men of the Church,"* while in others he is seen as an unbaptized heresiarch layman in fancy dress.

Disagreements over the Catholic Church and its influence have caused a number of schisms in Orthodoxy over the past few centuries. Any breaking of the existing entrenchment in ecumenical dialogue will require divine intervention.

I doubt highly that they would say that 1054 is when they "left", but I get what you are saying. These different dates "in practice", could you explain some of them? Thanks.

Of course they don't say they left, schismatics never do. But Rome also still thinks they are the Church and we are the schismatics. But 1054 is when Rome voluntarily cut itself off from the communion with those who did not accept their heretical view of primacy.

As to the specifics of your question, post-schism history isn't really my thing. I know Bishop Kallistos has a brief treatment of this in 'The Orthodox Church' as, iirc, does Jaroslav Pelikan in his history of the East. I believe Antioch for a time attempted to maintain communion with both Rome and the other Orthodox but eventually had to admit it wasn't going to work.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Well, I step away, and the thread is completely off course. shocking Some have said that 1204 is another date spoken of in regards to where the line should be drawn between the two traditions. Is this a popular view?

Especially in Greece.

A lot of dates can be provided. If it wasn't for the drama of Cardinal Humbert, maybe 1054 wouldn't have been picked (the Pope of Rome had been struck from the diptychs a few decades earlier, when he sent a missive with the Filioque in it. But that was done without fanfair).

...or 1305. I remember back in '95-'96, when the very famous (in Catalonia) Catalan singer Josep Tero visited Athos, he was offended by the Archontaris of a Monastery (Vatopaidi) because the latter refused to receive him due to his Catalan ethnicity. Tero asked and found out that in the Monasteries of Athos, Catalonia is synonymous to evil and Catalans are considered a villainous band of thieves. It all began in 1305 when the Catalans of the Catalan Company of the East, pillaged and plundered Athos and killed many monks. In '03 Tero with the Catalan poet and linguist Carles Duarte made a formal proposal to the autonomous Catalan Parliament to put to the vote a motion of a formal apology for the Catalan conduct in the 14th century. To show their unfeigned feelings the Catalan Parliament voted solidly for the financial support of the gentrification of a 16th century oil storage house in Vatopaidi.

I have just started reading another article given to me by serb, and it posits that the schism was in 1484. Thoughts? Is this a common view, or a personal opinion?

Fairly common, especially among historians. The estrangement was sealed or institutionalized, you could say, by the Ottoman Turks, who chose the Patriarch of Constantinople and did not desire any reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christendom. Ironically, the threat of the Turks was largely the impetus for reconciliation efforts earlier in the 15th century. But once Constantinople fell and the Turks were in control of New Rome and of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, things changed.

I guess the question arises now of why doesn't the Orthodox Church recognize Catholic Tradition as Orthodox up to the date of 1484?

Or do they? Or did they?

« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 11:09:30 AM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.

I think what matters is what the Magisterium teaches, and not what individuals believe. That applies on several fronts.

Agreed

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.